Fine-tuning and Design vs. Omnipotence

[Trent Wray]

I perfectly understand, and cannot fault you any for wanting to hear eyewitness accounts.




HAH! I forgot to relate to you something which did happen to my twin brother just before Christmas of 2008.

From between the years 2005 and June of 2009, my brother had signed on with Washington Mutual up in NYC as an IT guy. So he was living in New York for a while before this particular incident.

Some backstory:

Neither my brother nor myself had attended church since at least high school (graduated in 2002.) In fact, neither of us really much much thought to God whatsoever. Basically, we were both agnostic.

But one Thursday....the second Thursday of the month of December, he was coming home from a late night at the office. He didn't get off work until about 11 PM that night. But for some reason, he didn't feel like going directly home, but also didn't feel like going out either. So he decided to stop at this one church, because he knew it was going to be a nice quiet, and peaceful place to sit down, and rest a bit to sort some things out in his mind. After a while, he got up and left to go home, after feeling more at peace.

The very next night was another late night at the office. Coming through the same intersection almost exactly 24 hours later, his car was struck by a semi. An 18-wheel semi. His car just absolutely vanished into nothing but steel and glass. (It was later determined the driver of the truck was doing about 50 MPH, and ran the red light just as my brother was coming through the intersection. How the hell you can get such a large vehicle up to such a speed in the middle of the friggin city, I have no idea!) Any way, my brothers car was struck on the rear passenger side door. (The rear right-hand side, in case your not in the US.)

Pretty much the car was completely demolished, as you can well imagine. Not just demolished, but totally obliterated. Looked exactly like the rubble from the Twin Towers. At least, the rear and right-hand side of the car. 3/4 of the car. It basically sawed the car in half, taking out the entire rear, plus making the front passenger seat area was ripped out and behind the driver seat. The only thing left, was the driver's side, and most of the engine block, and the driver's door. Even the center console between passenger and driver was gone!

After the truck literally smashed it's way through the car, much as if it has smashed it's way through the side of a barn or something, the rest of the vehicle, including my brother (the seat, steering column, driver's door, half the engine block, gas and break pedals) went sailing across the intersection, and slammed into a light post or something. Some kind of pole, which proceeded to bend in half, and smash down on what was left of the vehicle, annihilating the rest of the engine block in front of my brother, and his door finally came loose and dropped off completely.

Meanwhile, the truck continued on it's head-long course, before finally coming to a complete stop nearly a block later, miraculously missing any other property. A nice-sized chunk of steel from my brother's car (it was an axle) went streaming through another vehicle's windshield like a javelin, mostly going clean through the passenger seat. That car, too, had a lone driver. (Apparently, the driver had just dropped off his girlfriend literally 10 minutes before hand!)

Upon coming to the scene, the first cops thought they were going to have a mess on their hands with body parts all over the road. They came up to whatever the hell was left of Ant's car. (My brother;s name is Anthony.) They saw a completely intact person in the passenger seat, but the cops insisted that they knew in their minds he was dead. No way anyone survived this thing. One of the cops reached out to check the pulse, but didn't find one, and reported one dead at the scene.

Paramedics and an ambulance arrived with a body bag. Of course, they checked for a pulse, and found one. They were able to get him out very rapidly, for the steering column and whatever was left of the dashboard was bubbled outward like, and the door was laying on the ground. In fact, where the passenger seat was SUPPOSED to be, a paramedic was able to go from that side equally as easily! There just simply was nothing there. So they were able to get him out of the...uuhh..."car"....properly without moving his body which may place him in greater danger. (One of the reasons why untrained people are not supposed to touch someone in a car accident. You can injure them even further, all too easily!)

Anyway, got him in the ambulance, and did all the standard procedures on him, with using the oxygen mask, and checking his vitals and whatever else they do. By the time they got to the hospital, they were sure there had to be some broken ones, or internal injury somewhere. But once in the hospital, there was nothing. No internal bleeding. No broken bones. Not even a scratch or a bruise anywhere! He was just simply passed out.

When he finally woke up and was coherent enough to hold a conversation, he does not remember the accident much at all. Only thing he remembers was being in a dream-like state, looking out the passenger side of his car, seeing this big light coming towards him all in slow-motion. At which point, he kept asking people "what happened to the other person? Was he Ok?" Everyone was wondering what he was talking about. Yes, the truck driver was Ok. Yes, everyone in the intersection was fine. But he swears that if his dream were the accident, then someone must have been squashed by the truck. He insists still to this day, he saw clearly a person standing between him and the bright light, with his right arm raised towards the light. ...

I dunno, but that story really brings chills to me. It has really made me think that maybe there is something to this whole God thing after all. I mean, I know Ant. I know Ant more than any human being can possibly know any other human being. It is impossible for him to make up a story and lie to me. And there is nothing but sincere honesty, fringed with a touch of fear and wide-eyed wonderment anytime he relates the story back to me. And he is frightfully consistent, even from the very first time when he told what he saw while he was barely coherent in the hospital.

In any case, it turns out the driver of that truck was above the legal limit of blood-alcohol, and was driving a semi trailer more than 25 mph above the speed limit on a surface street, blowing through a red light. It was his own truck, too. Basically, he lost his CDL and regular license permanently, went to prison, and all his assets were seized to pay off fines, hospital bills, and damages from the lawsuit Ant obtained.

Well ... that's not exactly the kind of eye witness accounts I'm talking about . What you described is a horrific accident, and I'm glad your brother didn't suffer any injury. As well as the other driver, although it sounds like his accident wiped him out financially ...

Regardless, this is an anecdotal story ... and what your brother claims to have seen in the dream like state could have been any number of things. But the person he claims he saw get hit didn't identify himself, right? He didn't say, "I'm a god," or "I'm a supernatural being," or "I'm Thor," or "I'm an angelic creature," or "I'm from another dimension," etc and so forth. Right? There were no messages relayed to your brother from this person, if in fact it wasn't something within his imagination during the time, right?

Plus, he's your brother, not mine. If he's convinced he saw a supernatural being, and you choose to believe him ... it's still not applicable to me. Not only does the story not point to anything in particular, even if the person WAS supernatural, and DID appear to just your brother ... it still is an unidentified being. How do you know it was "gods"? Not an alien? Why pick one brand of paranormal explanations over another? Furthermore, to believe your brother, requires faith on your part. Or those close to him.

I don't want to have faith in your brother's story, I want to see it for myself or be told what I need to do.

Now, I don't mean to pick your story apart ... I'm just using it as an example to further explain what I mean by "accounts", and non-postcard type of stories or evidence. First hand stuff that is practical and applicable .... I should have described it better perhaps.

That's more of what I mean by "eye witness", although using the phrase eye witness was probably misleading. Something more tangible. Less having to do with feelings, and goosebumps, or visionary type experiences that raise more questions than answers, etc and so forth. Something ... practical ... or something that might actually reveal some useful information. Like, "I met with God, and God told me to tell you that he's going to meet with you as well at 10:30am tomorrow, by the brook at Fair Park," or something to that effect. Or, "God is indeed loving, and to prove it to you, He said that He's going to ________" or something. Practical things that will actually play out in real life and can be counted on.

 

[Nihilianth]

Well ... that's not exactly the kind of eye witness accounts I'm talking about . What you described is a horrific accident, and I'm glad your brother didn't suffer any injury. As well as the other driver, although it sounds like his accident wiped him out financially ...

Well, I do know quite well, about the theory of statistics. With enough people, and enough time, just about anything crazy can happen to someone, somewhere. I can relate this to the great game of baseball. A perfect game, for example, is so rare, that it is nearly impossible for anyone to even so much as witness one, much less actually pitch one. And yet, after enough games that are played by enough people, they will happen.

I still believe in some divine intervention, though.

Regardless, this is an anecdotal story ... and what your brother claims to have seen in the dream like state could have been any number of things. But the person he claims he saw get hit didn't identify himself, right? He didn't say, "I'm a god," or "I'm a supernatural being," or "I'm Thor," or "I'm an angelic creature," or "I'm from another dimension," etc and so forth. Right? There were no messages relayed to your brother from this person, if in fact it wasn't something within his imagination during the time, right?

You are correct. The "person" he saw in the bright light never identified "himself" in any way. Still doesn't make it any less strange.

Plus, he's your brother, not mine. If he's convinced he saw a supernatural being, and you choose to believe him ... it's still not applicable to me. Not only does the story not point to anything in particular, even if the person WAS supernatural, and DID appear to just your brother ... it still is an unidentified being. How do you know it was "gods"? Not an alien? Why pick one brand of paranormal explanations over another? Furthermore, to believe your brother, requires faith on your part. Or those close to him.

I think that "faith" is the operative word here. I was not intending to convince you of anything. Just merely relaying an answer to your question about what I thought you were asking how I came about to my conclusions. But I see I was mistaken once again. I see in post number 172 that you were asking what I can relay to you, for your benefit. Sorry. I have nothing of that sort. Just an interesting little story.

As for an alien? Sorry, but I would assume that an alien is also an animal like the rest of us, who has to follow all the same rules of physics that we do. Otherwise, they wouldn't be an alien, but rather some sort of interdimensional or spiritual being or something like that anyway.

I don't want to have faith in your brother's story, I want to see it for myself or be told what I need to do.

I do not want to, nor intend to, tell anyone what they need to do. Or that they need to do anything at all. I assume, you mean in regards to finding a way to "get in contact" with God, or a great spirit or something like that. Well, considering I am not terribly spiritual myself, I would be the wrong person to ask such a thing. Sorry.

Now, I don't mean to pick your story apart ... I'm just using it as an example to further explain what I mean by "accounts", and non-postcard type of stories or evidence. First hand stuff that is practical and applicable .... I should have described it better perhaps.

That's more of what I mean by "eye witness", although using the phrase eye witness was probably misleading. Something more tangible. Less having to do with feelings, and goosebumps, or visionary type experiences that raise more questions than answers, etc and so forth. Something ... practical ... or something that might actually reveal some useful information. Like, "I met with God, and God told me to tell you that he's going to meet with you as well at 10:30am tomorrow, by the brook at Fair Park," or something to that effect. Or, "God is indeed loving, and to prove it to you, He said that He's going to ________" or something. Practical things that will actually play out in real life and can be counted on.

I dunno. I don't think that such a supreme being like that is going to want to play around with a bunch of children's magic tricks all of the time. I think he would rather you just be loyal and loving right back. Much like your dog. But that's just my opinion. I honestly dunno what to tell you, if you really "need" such hard proof as all that.

 

[Trent Wray]

Well, I do know quite well, about the theory of statistics. With enough people, and enough time, just about anything crazy can happen to someone, somewhere. I can relate this to the great game of baseball. A perfect game, for example, is so rare, that it is nearly impossible for anyone to even so much as witness one, much less actually pitch one. And yet, after enough games that are played by enough people, they will happen.

I still believe in some divine intervention, though.

You are correct. The "person" he saw in the bright light never identified "himself" in any way. Still doesn't make it any less strange.

Well ... one man's strange is another man's norm

I think that "faith" is the operative word here. I was not intending to convince you of anything. Just merely relaying an answer to your question about what I thought you were asking how I came about to my conclusions. But I see I was mistaken once again. I see in post number 172 that you were asking what I can relay to you, for your benefit. Sorry. I have nothing of that sort. Just an interesting little story.

Dude no worries ... I'm not trying to trap you. I didn't think you were trying to convince me of anything. You were answering my questions . I just started off somewhat generalized ... but then got more specific that's all. It's a technique to get to certain kinds of information

As for an alien? Sorry, but I would assume that an alien is also an animal like the rest of us, who has to follow all the same rules of physics that we do. Otherwise, they wouldn't be an alien, but rather some sort of interdimensional or spiritual being or something like that anyway.

I do not want to, nor intend to, tell anyone what they need to do. Or that they need to do anything at all. I assume, you mean in regards to finding a way to "get in contact" with God, or a great spirit or something like that. Well, considering I am not terribly spiritual myself, I would be the wrong person to ask such a thing. Sorry.

I dunno. I don't think that such a supreme being like that is going to want to play around with a bunch of children's magic tricks all of the time. I think he would rather you just be loyal and loving right back. Much like your dog. But that's just my opinion.

Lots of opinions and assumptions there lol

When it comes to certain things, I just don't like to assume all that much. Marriages, having children, making major life choices, God(s), etc and so forth. I take them seriously in what I deem to be a practical sense. Other things, not so much. I'm content with my opinion about American football for example. I'm not that invested in it, so I don't really care about even my own opinions validity when I'm talking out my arse concerning it. I could just as easily say a team is good as it is bad, or that I like a certain player or dislike one. It depends on the moment. The other things I mentioned are much more of a major factor, so I like to find "evidence" concerning them lol

Maybe you feel about your religious/spiritual opinions in a similar fashion as I do about American football for example? Maybe it's more of a coffee talk type of thing. For me, it can be ... but at the same time, I do look for actual evidence/proof/information. I try not to get heated up over it with others .... that's useless, imo.

I honestly dunno what to tell you, if you really "need" such hard proof as all that.

Welcome to the JREF I'm thinking you are going to run into quite a few posters who enjoy "hard proof"

And it's not always a need. Perhaps sometimes it's a need, or perhaps I just think it's a need. It's a "want" though ... I know that much ....

 

[Nihilianth]

Well ... one man's strange is another man's norm

Dude no worries ... I'm not trying to trap you. I didn't think you were trying to convince me of anything. You were answering my questions . I just started off somewhat generalized ... but then got more specific that's all. It's a technique to get to certain kinds of information

Oh, I know you weren't trying to trap me. No worries there, man. If you were, I was going to be as open and honest as I could anyway. No reason not to. I have nothing to hide.

Lots of opinions and assumptions there lol

When it comes to certain things, I just don't like to assume all that much. Marriages, having children, making major life choices, God(s), etc and so forth. I take them seriously in what I deem to be a practical sense. Other things, not so much. I'm content with my opinion about American football for example. I'm not that invested in it, so I don't really care about even my own opinions validity when I'm talking out my arse concerning it. I could just as easily say a team is good as it is bad, or that I like a certain player or dislike one. It depends on the moment. The other things I mentioned are much more of a major factor, so I like to find "evidence" concerning them lol

Maybe you feel about your religious/spiritual opinions in a similar fashion as I do about American football for example? Maybe it's more of a coffee talk type of thing. For me, it can be ... but at the same time, I do look for actual evidence/proof/information. I try not to get heated up over it with others .... that's useless, imo.[/quote]

Yeah, I got ya. Perhaps using your analogy, I'm probably a little more than a "casual fan" when it comes to God, but nowhere near being completely obsessed like most religious folks tend to be. Probably somewhere in between what you think of football, and a rabid fan of the game. I have my own opinions and life experiences to go off from when it comes to the belief in God.

Welcome to the JREF I'm thinking you are going to run into quite a few posters who enjoy "hard proof"

And it's not always a need. Perhaps sometimes it's a need, or perhaps I just think it's a need. It's a "want" though ... I know that much ....[/QUOTE]

Well, certainly for any other topic, I would be more than happy to oblige for "hard proof" when it is requested. But in this one particular topic, I can only talk about my formulated opinion and life experiences. I will also try to be as open and honest as I can, but I cannot guarantee clarity.

 

[Mister Agenda]

To hopefully put this to rest once and for all, Sceptic Tank was the one which initiated the question. I merely rephrased the question in such a way that a theist would ask the same thing. I did so in order to illustrate a point that his question was not valid, and had nothing to do with the conversation. Or at the very least, was a non-starter, because the argument he was making really would have no bearing on the larger conversation.

He never really answered the question after I had asked him several times. I don't blame him for avoiding the question, because it was useless. I was merely showing the flaw in his thinking that if something doesn't exist, that should mean that "God has no imagination." The reverse is also true: That just because something does exist, is not necessarily evidence that God does as well.

It was probably inadvertant, but you quoted one of your own posts, not Skeptic Tanks. Here is Skeptic Tank's:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6979159#post6979159

So, your fixation on mammals with stomach-mouths is rather out of context. Skeptic Tanks main point is that, given omnipotence, the diversity of life seems rather limited.

Your reply amounts to 'maybe it's less limited somewhere else.'

Maybe that's the case. We have no way of knowing for sure. But we can only go by what we're able to observe. And even though there probably are weird creatures elsewhere in the universe, they would only be relevant to God's omnipotence if they were not a product of natural selection and common descent. To an omnipotent God, all forms of creation are equal, there's no reason to expect such a being to stick to one medium of biological expression.

I'm not going to try to explain this any further, if I were capable of adequately explaining why bringing up imaginary counter-examples to an actual observation is invalid (argument from ignorance: you don't know X isn't true, therefore anything), you would already be convinced by now.

 

[Mister Agenda]

You strongly believe in some entity that you acknowledge may not exist?

Agnostic theist, probably a pretty common position. We don't hear from them much, I think, because we don't really have that much to argue about.

 

[Nihilianth]

It was probably inadvertant, but you quoted one of your own posts, not Skeptic Tanks. Here is Skeptic Tank's:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6979159#post6979159

So, your fixation on mammals with stomach-mouths is rather out of context. Skeptic Tanks main point is that, given omnipotence, the diversity of life seems rather limited.

Your reply amounts to 'maybe it's less limited somewhere else.'

Maybe that's the case. We have no way of knowing for sure. But we can only go by what we're able to observe. And even though there probably are weird creatures elsewhere in the universe, they would only be relevant to God's omnipotence if they were not a product of natural selection and common descent. To an omnipotent God, all forms of creation are equal, there's no reason to expect such a being to stick to one medium of biological expression.

I'm not going to try to explain this any further, if I were capable of adequately explaining why bringing up imaginary counter-examples to an actual observation is invalid (argument from ignorance: you don't know X isn't true, therefore anything), you would already be convinced by now.

Point taken. But I still think it was a wrong-headed argument to make. I think that making the claim that stranger animals do not exist, is just as bad as making the claim that they could. And backing it up with what we can observe I don;t think is all that desirable either. We only have one planet that we are able to readily observe, out of trillions that are out there. There is the possibility of other life elsewhere within our own solar system in places such as the moon Europa. But getting there, then getting beneath the ice, is beyond troublesome as it is. Much less being able to travel between the stars.

I just view claims that something doesn't exist, is worse than those who claim that something could exist. At least I leave open for more possibilities.

Do note, that I do think that making the claim that mammals with mouths in their stomach might exist somewhere is quite a flawed argument to make. Likewise, making the argument that they don't exist at all I think is just as flawed. Just because you cannot observe something, doesn't mean it is not possible, even without the existence of any God who designed it.

 

[Nihilianth]

Agnostic theist, probably a pretty common position. We don't hear from them much, I think, because we don't really have that much to argue about.

Exactly! I tend to get in more arguments with pure theists than anyone else, but tend to not get involve with this discussion, as I see merits to both side of the argument. I assume it is the same for anyone else who may have the same viewpoint. Theists tend to get all indignant when I say I believe in the Christian God, but not a literal interpretation of the Bible. Whereas, atheists tend to not argue with me at all, and never really have to explain my viewpoint at any length, as I see science the same way they do. Most atheists seem to accept this without so much as a remark.

 

[Mister Agenda]

But this isn't even the point I'm making. The point I'm trying to make, involves this:

Suppose George starts to get irate at Ashley. "You are an idiot if you think it's a man with a gun. Why? Your experiences previous to this don't count for anything! You've been in error every single time you've thought it was a man with a gun. You are a girl crying wolf, when I've never seen a wolf and neither have you. And you know what? Suppose it is a man with a gun. So what? He's an idiot. He's evil. He's cruel to continually let you think there is a man with a gun when it's always someone else. He's also a coward, and lazy, and stupid, and if you continue to believe he exists, following you around, you're an idiot and a loon as well .... "etc and so forth.

Now, you turn around to face the gun, and all that "talk" gets silenced, because now your tone changes.

This doesn't mean her paranoia was justified. At all. But it's not about her now. It's about YOU. It's irrelevant whether she was correct or incorrect. It can't be proven that her paranoia paid off, or her faith was based on fact. What you were previously saying about what you thought of the man with the gun, doesn't add up to how you are now behaving towards the man with the gun, and was never evidence as to whether there was actually a man with a gun there or not.

That's a good clarification.

The thing is, the man with the gun being an evil, cruel, lazy coward does not alter the fact that he is the one holding the gun and he is therefore very, very dangerous no matter his personal flaws. And unlike a real gunman, being defiant isn't a strategy that could work with a tyrant version of God. You are totally powerless. You can't even bluff.

It's not inconsistent to believe in a tyrant God and want to placate it. If you think such a being exists, that's just common sense. There are plenty of examples in history of people who considered their God a tyrant and worshiping it out of a desire to appease its wrath. The typical Christian conception of a God who is love and is jealous and wrathful has an inconsistent personality. Why this is so is not mysterious to an atheist: God is a fictional character who has been turned to many different purposes by different authors with different agendas. God is old school to the ancient Hebrews and new school to the Christians and Christians haven't allowed themselves the 'out' of many religions that regard the gods as having dark sides. Christians who accept the scriptures as literal are in a bind, they're like the Lewis Carroll character who believes in six impossible things before breakfast: their conception of God is self-contradictory, and they have to put in considerable mental work reconciling those contradictions.

In my opinion, when an atheist observes scriptures describing a God with a definite dark side (ordering genocides, general indiscriminate smiting) they may claim they would never worship such a being, but the truth is, sufficiently brutal torture can break anyone. I've thought it through. I could jump defiantly into the pit, but I know it wouldn't be long before the constant writhing torment would have me regretting my decision, and I would regret it for eternity and the torturer will never be satisfied. And so would anyone else, the most you can hope for is to last longer than average before you break. People joke about being in the company of interesting people, but it's just idle chatter about a place more imaginary than Atlantis, like the Heroes in Hell series, not a real place where you literally burn forever without being consumed and where the pain is always fresh and agonizing.

I think what's often (but not always) left unspoken is one more claim about 'the man with the gun'. That is the claim that the 'man with the gun' loves us and is a good person. And Ashley loves the man with the gun and thinks if I don't do as the man with the gun says, I deserve what I get; and one of the things the man with the gun says is that if I don't believe in him and love him before I turn around he will shoot me to death, starting with my limbs and working inward, making sure to get my spinal cord at some point, and finishing with a gut shot to make sure it takes awhile for me to die. This character is despicable, and only made worse by his sick insistence on being loved.

And Ashley is proud of her relationship with the gunman. She's sad that I can't understand her love is true and the gunman is worthy of her adoration. She doesn't get why I think it's not real love, and more like battered wife or Stockholm syndrome.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Point taken. But I still think it was a wrong-headed argument to make. I think that making the claim that stranger animals do not exist, is just as bad as making the claim that they could. And backing it up with what we can observe I don;t think is all that desirable either. We only have one planet that we are able to readily observe, out of trillions that are out there. There is the possibility of other life elsewhere within our own solar system in places such as the moon Europa. But getting there, then getting beneath the ice, is beyond troublesome as it is. Much less being able to travel between the stars.

I just view claims that something doesn't exist, is worse than those who claim that something could exist. At least I leave open for more possibilities.

Do note, that I do think that making the claim that mammals with mouths in their stomach might exist somewhere is quite a flawed argument to make. Likewise, making the argument that they don't exist at all I think is just as flawed. Just because you cannot observe something, doesn't mean it is not possible, even without the existence of any God who designed it.

Certainly it's a point that can be argued, but I think that it can be taken as understood that 'doesn't exist' isn't necessarily a gnostic statement, just short hand for 'doesn't exist here or as far as we know, anywhere else'.

With the understanding that we're only talking about our planet, it's still valid to wonder 'why an infinitely powerful and creative being' is so stingy with resources and designs. It's a question that applies to a being that could do special creation effortlessly but chooses to stay within the bounds of what can be explained by evolution. 'God works in mysterious ways' isn't really an answer.

I presume your answer is 'I don't know, but I believe anyway', which at least is honest and brings us straight to faith instead of beating around the bush with a lot of arguments.

 

[dlorde]

Agnostic theist, probably a pretty common position. We don't hear from them much, I think, because we don't really have that much to argue about.

I could understand a tentative belief in something that might be imaginary (I'm thinking cryptozoology as an example here), but strong belief? I can also understand strong belief in the possibility of its existence - perhaps that is what was meant?

 

[Mister Agenda]

I could understand a tentative belief in something that might be imaginary (I'm thinking cryptozoology as an example here), but strong belief? I can also understand strong belief in the possibility of its existence - perhaps that is what was meant?

I can't speak for Nihilianth, but I imagine that's where faith comes in.

 

[dlorde]

I can't speak for Nihilianth, but I imagine that's where faith comes in.

Looks like I'm never going to get the hang of it - although I believe tentatively in the possibility that I may

 

[Nihilianth]

Certainly it's a point that can be argued, but I think that it can be taken as understood that 'doesn't exist' isn't necessarily a gnostic statement, just short hand for 'doesn't exist here or as far as we know, anywhere else'.

With the understanding that we're only talking about our planet, it's still valid to wonder 'why an infinitely powerful and creative being' is so stingy with resources and designs. It's a question that applies to a being that could do special creation effortlessly but chooses to stay within the bounds of what can be explained by evolution. 'God works in mysterious ways' isn't really an answer.

I presume your answer is 'I don't know, but I believe anyway', which at least is honest and brings us straight to faith instead of beating around the bush with a lot of arguments.

The bolded was pretty much what I have been saying all along. I just enjoy the philosophical nature of the discussion.

As for the middle portion, I think we can come round again, because my argument once again is two-fold:

1. If God did create the Earth and planned out all the life on the planet, I rather think he did a fantastic job in creativity. I mean, he used the same materials, and the same means (carbon, using DNA as the final messenger) to create literally billions of different types of species from the earliest little becterial cells, to billions of human beings, all of which look different, each with a unique DNA strand, unique fingerprints, unique facial structures, and unique eyebal;l patterns. It is rather nothing short of amazing.

2. Well, We have no reason to know the mind of God, and His plans and/or desires..

At which point, I guess it just comes down to your own personal opinion on the matter. Because this conversation can easily go round back again in circles.

 

[Nihilianth]

I can't speak for Nihilianth, but I imagine that's where faith comes in.

Looks like I'm never going to get the hang of it - although I believe tentatively in the possibility that I may

It's all good. I rather think this discussion is rapidly coming to a close. It was just a neat little exercise in philosophical debate. I still believe what I believe, which is isn't all that complex, but incredibly difficult to explain.
.
Basically, I believe that God is as real as the sun. I have faith that this is so. Yet, there is no possible way to prove this existence scientifically. Much like how a parent may have faith in their kid, even though they cannot prove that he/she will succeed. Much like in any adventure story, like LoTR, where Sam has this undeniable and unshakable faith in Frodo.

And yet, I take scientific discoveries and theories as another indisputable fact, which is tangible in a physical sense, and can be proven

 

[Mister Agenda]

The bolded was pretty much what I have been saying all along. I just enjoy the philosophical nature of the discussion.

As for the middle portion, I think we can come round again, because my argument once again is two-fold:

1. If God did create the Earth and planned out all the life on the planet, I rather think he did a fantastic job in creativity. I mean, he used the same materials, and the same means (carbon, using DNA as the final messenger) to create literally billions of different types of species from the earliest little becterial cells, to billions of human beings, all of which look different, each with a unique DNA strand, unique fingerprints, unique facial structures, and unique eyebal;l patterns. It is rather nothing short of amazing.

2. Well, We have no reason to know the mind of God, and His plans and/or desires..

At which point, I guess it just comes down to your own personal opinion on the matter. Because this conversation can easily go round back again in circles.

Clearly, if there is an omnipotent God, it is a minimalist that enjoys doing a lot with a little.

 

[dropzone]

Maybe God is obsessed with details and the universe is part of his model airplane collection.

Screw the theology and biology! Except, then God would've created the de Havilland Dragon Rapide, the world's most perfect airplane, from the whole cloth. Er, and plywood and tubing. In 1:48 scale, but still with scale fabric, the warp and woof of which you could only see with a microscope.

In the Real World, the deeper you look the more you realize that, if there were a Designer, He set a few rules of how matter and energy work at the Big Bang, then let it all unfold. That doesn't explain the origin of life, but neither does Darwin. And it supports the Deists.

As for that, I suggest the studies of Stuart Kauffmann regarding self-organization. You might realize that life, rather than improbable, is pretty much inevitable, given the right (but not highly-constrained) circumstances. Or, as my wife said when I told of driving through the smoke of an oil refinery and said it smelled like French fries, "There are only so many ways carbon atoms can hook up with other atoms."

Lacking her knowledge of chemistry, it took me a moment to say, "There are probably hundreds of ways for carbon atoms to hook up with other atoms."

"Thousands, but that's 'only so many.'"

Sometimes you need to look at the Big Picture.

 

[Nihilianth]

Clearly, if there is an omnipotent God, it is a minimalist that enjoys doing a lot with a little.

And I see nothing wrong with that. In fact, as a web designer, I am personally a huge fan of making web sites as minimalist as possible. I am actually a big fan of minimalist art in general. So I suppose this is entirely apt.

 

[Trent Wray]

That's a good clarification.

The thing is, the man with the gun being an evil, cruel, lazy coward does not alter the fact that he is the one holding the gun and he is therefore very, very dangerous no matter his personal flaws. And unlike a real gunman, being defiant isn't a strategy that could work with a tyrant version of God. You are totally powerless. You can't even bluff.

It's not inconsistent to believe in a tyrant God and want to placate it. If you think such a being exists, that's just common sense. There are plenty of examples in history of people who considered their God a tyrant and worshiping it out of a desire to appease its wrath. The typical Christian conception of a God who is love and is jealous and wrathful has an inconsistent personality. Why this is so is not mysterious to an atheist: God is a fictional character who has been turned to many different purposes by different authors with different agendas. God is old school to the ancient Hebrews and new school to the Christians and Christians haven't allowed themselves the 'out' of many religions that regard the gods as having dark sides. Christians who accept the scriptures as literal are in a bind, they're like the Lewis Carroll character who believes in six impossible things before breakfast: their conception of God is self-contradictory, and they have to put in considerable mental work reconciling those contradictions.

In my opinion, when an atheist observes scriptures describing a God with a definite dark side (ordering genocides, general indiscriminate smiting) they may claim they would never worship such a being, but the truth is, sufficiently brutal torture can break anyone. I've thought it through. I could jump defiantly into the pit, but I know it wouldn't be long before the constant writhing torment would have me regretting my decision, and I would regret it for eternity and the torturer will never be satisfied. And so would anyone else, the most you can hope for is to last longer than average before you break. People joke about being in the company of interesting people, but it's just idle chatter about a place more imaginary than Atlantis, like the Heroes in Hell series, not a real place where you literally burn forever without being consumed and where the pain is always fresh and agonizing.

I think what's often (but not always) left unspoken is one more claim about 'the man with the gun'. That is the claim that the 'man with the gun' loves us and is a good person. And Ashley loves the man with the gun and thinks if I don't do as the man with the gun says, I deserve what I get; and one of the things the man with the gun says is that if I don't believe in him and love him before I turn around he will shoot me to death, starting with my limbs and working inward, making sure to get my spinal cord at some point, and finishing with a gut shot to make sure it takes awhile for me to die. This character is despicable, and only made worse by his sick insistence on being loved.

And Ashley is proud of her relationship with the gunman. She's sad that I can't understand her love is true and the gunman is worthy of her adoration. She doesn't get why I think it's not real love, and more like battered wife or Stockholm syndrome.

You make a lot of good points here .... and I'll try to respond succinctly

* I like that you point out the POV that someone might claim, "I would never bow down to such a tyrant," but at some point, would most likely break given the right amount of torment and torture, etc. So, talking one way about the man with the gun when you're not facing the end of an eternal barrel are two different things. I used to compare this "character trait" in a person, however, to Nazi Germany. Saying, "I would never commit such evil," is one thing, but some how millions went along with their countries agendas when facing the end of the gun, whilst many more stood in defiance of that gun and paid a horrific price.

However, even then ... those scenarios are not eternal. They all have an "end" in sight. At some point, the victim will die. Eternal torment at the hands of a god is another matter alltogether. So perhaps my comparisons to what someone would do IRL as opposed to how they might react when face to face with eternal consequences (in my mind) were unfair

* I think what the Xtian tries to do with the conflicting traits of "God" (i.e. loving yet wrathful) is try to reconcile them with the Father Figure concept. A parent can be loving, yet heavy handed, etc and so forth. It still has it's obvious holes (like starving children, suffering and misery even on the "children of God", etc and so forth), but it's one view used to rationalize contradictory behavior and is part of the considerable mental effort

* One thing to remember, about that final scenario you give of Ashley and the man with the gun .... she is assuming about things he has said or not said, and so are you. Neither of you has seen the man with the gun, nor heard a peep from him. You are going off of her non-evidenced based accounts and anecdotes, fears and thoughts, wants and opinions ... when she could easily be delusional. If you think the man with the gun has threatened you directly, then you would need to provide evidence, the same as she would if she thinks he has revealed to her all the things she speaks of. Otherwise, you are both still assuming a lot about someone you have neither heard from, nor seen.

Which would beg to question, of course, "if there IS someone there, why are they just standing there and not clearing things up? Why aren't they speaking up and saying, "I am a waiter, not a man with a gun," or "I have a gun and you're gonna die if you don't love me, like Ashley says," etc and so forth?

There are lots of reasons. Perhaps there is no one there at all. Perhaps there is a waiter, but the waiter is unable to speak ... or ignorant of what is taking place. Perhaps (the extreme arguments) "the whole scenario is god" or it's taking place in the mind of god or we're heads in jars, etc and so forth.

Regardless, the ultimate bottom line is that anything you or Ashely assume, without evidence, doesn't show WHAT could possibly be behind you. A man with a gun, a waiter, nothing, or something else. Your attitudes towards each other, and your assumptions, only count about as much as your opinions concerning idle chatter regarding Atlantis .

Dude .... it's been interesting hashing this out. I've actually learned a few things .

 

[Mister Agenda]

Well, this is unusual. I find myself with nothing left to argue about with Trent and Nihilianth.